Healthcare is not a right

Dr. Leonard Peikoff gave this excellent address regarding the philosophical debate against public healthcare. His statement is in direct reference to Clinton's healthcare plan of the 90s, but it applies perfectly in principle to our predicament today. I agree with this statement--I think that should go without saying. But carefully digest the author's argument. It is quite simple. Let us all know what you think.

Here is my response. Following it is a quoted section of Dr. Peikoff's statement.

Is healthcare a "right"? Absolutely not. However, I have the right to pursue good health through my hard work and diligence. The idea that I have the right to healthcare at the involuntary expense of another is, at very best, asinine. I frankly agree with Dr. Peikoff that such an idea is morally wrong, and certainly disharmonious with the inspired principles of self-government on which our country was founded. As Dr. Peikoff argues, our rights represent the capacity to act, as long as our actions do not impinge on others' capacity to act.

"Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.

"Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

"The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree."

Living at Home

I thought this particularly fitting after our discussion last week, especially what Maegan shared about working for the state of California.

Can be found at http://comics.com/flight_deck/?Page=3.

World Family Policy Center

The World Family Policy Center examines United Nations documents that contain family policy implications. WFPC's motive is to facilitate pro-family debate and education among member countries of the United Nations. Navigate to the above link and you will find a list of salient family policy issues that have been and are currently being addressed by the WFPC.

One interesting article addressed the inadequacies of the charter of children's rights that was adopted during the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989. The author of WFPC's article offers a revised charter which he entitles "What Children Really Need."

What do you all think of the charter? What do you think of the author's justification for the revision? Below, the ten articles of the charter are quoted.

Article I: Each Child Has the Right to a Mother
Article II: Each Child Has the Right to a Father
Article III: Each Child Has the Right to a Home Built on Marriage
Article IV: Each Child Has the Right to Siblings
Article V: Each Child Has the Right to Ancestors
Article VI: Each Child Has the Right to a Posterity
Article VII: Each Child Has the Right to Religious Faith
Article VIII: Each Child Has the Right to Live in a Healthy Community
Article IX: Each Child Shall Have a Right to Innocence
Article X: Each Child Has the Right to a Tradition

Foster Care in Utah

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705364663/Utah-foster-care-placements-up-40-in-past-decade-legislative-audit-finds.html?pg=1

It seems that foster care in Utah is a whole lot different than foster care in other states. This article mentions, "Over the past decade, foster care placements in Utah have increased by 38 percent while the number of families that receive in-home supports that allow children to stay in their family homes has decreased by 40 percent".

I am not very familiar with the foster care policies of the state. Is there an abundance of a "zero tolerance policy" here than in other states? Or are there just more children in Utah than in other states and that's why the ratios are so different here?

Email Addresses

Please remember to email Dr. Piercy your email address (the one you want to be listed for the blogger site).